Global warming does not have to be a problem for mankind as long as we
prepare for what we will need to do to adapt, and start preparing now. I
think we are too far gone to stop anthropogenic global warming, not with the
likes of China and India only now just beginning to come online
economically. They will follow the easiest route to industrialisation, which
is burning fossil fuels, and we can't deny them that route. It does'nt mean
that we should not bother to take into greater consideration the environment
today, I just think we now need to prepare and realise that we are going to
have to face the repurcussions of past and present industrialisation. I
think we'll need to learn to accept and adapt to the fact that we're going
to lose large areas of several of our major cities to the sea, we'll lose
our present landscape as trees die etc, not being able to deal with the
speed of the change, but agriculturally by changing the crops we use, in
areas of the world where agriculture remains or newly becomes viable, it is
feasable we could manage. I reckon global warming will no doubt cause
conflict, but if we are going to adapt and survive the world will have to
take globalisation up a gear and come togethor politically globally, so that
we can work togethor so that people don't starve in some countries (while
other countries reap the benefits, e.g more advantagous growing seasons).
Who knows, us guys in the UK may all have to move to Spain or North Africa
to escape those advancing glaciers if the Gulf Stream shuts off, that will
take a fair bit of political co-operation! I saw a programme a BBC couple of
years ago which said that mankind was nearly wiped out by some natural
disaster tens of thousand years ago (may have been disease), and numbers
fell to just a couple of thousand, only the strongest most adaptable and
innovative survived. But with foresight (we know it's probably on its way),
science, technology, and political dexterity, we have developed the tools
over the past 6,000 years to limit the natural repurcussions we will
experience in the new few hundred years. Realistically I think it's going to
take a few more Hurricane Katrina style wake up calls before the poilticians
are driven into action because the people have the will. Unfortunately the
biggest losers will be the flora and fauna, that won't be able to adapt,
we're probably going to see a lot of diversity being destroyed, and the
world will be a lot duller for it. But for mankind I think there will be
winners and losers. And it will be a valuable test for how to deal with
natural climate change when that eventually happens!


"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)